Video response chages view on combat

 I recently figured out that talking about gaming can make me happy, not as happy as actually playing. But in the absence of a game it is better than nothing. I also decided that reading and watching videos about gaming can improve not only my mood but can add to my level of skill running and playing games. I have been watching a series of videos on running D&D. The channel is Dungeon Craft , and the host refers to himself as professor Dungeon-master. As I was watching an older video of his;  

Replace Armor Class in D&D & Pathfinder?

I realized something about the way I treat combat in Dungeons and Dragons. I think of combat as threat management. An attack roll represents a threat of harm to you. Armour class reduces the possible threat from weapons allowing you to rely on your hit points to save you less often. Hit points can represent dodging and parrying. Armour being passive doesn't require effort and never expires. AC is coverage and quality of protection and works the same for everyone who wears it. HPs are active defense and are exhausted as the character tires out. This could also explain the low bonus of shields in D&D. They require some effort and skill to employ so the benefit is the passive protection one gives you. I could give a HP bonus to characters employing a shield or give shields themselves some form of HP, I will figure that out later. Just that I now have a better understanding of  how my personal view of combat can work in the D&D world. 

 And I used to think that studying how other people did things would just lead to me copying them. This understanding of one aspect of the game will make me better at running a game in the future. Give the prof some of your time and maybe it will help you too.

Reason for adventuring 2

  In a medieval world 30-180 gold pieces is a lot of money for an individual to have. Given the poorer classes in even a very inflated economy rarely would see more than a few coins, how does that explain starting money in D&D?  In my hypothetical and still not actual Swords and Wizardry campaign I like to have an in world reason for the rules as written. So why would a starting character have such wealth? Simple given the setting of the game, make the characters nobles. Not grand imperial or kingly. Petty nobles with a small inheritance or stipend and no prospects for a future. Make them the 5th son or 3rd daughter of a title holder and adventuring is their only chance for a better life. Give them a retainer or even a small retinue to make things interesting. Money power and fame are the means to get back at their family for casting them out, or rightfully claiming the title from a usurper. The character's endgame is already written thus allowing for retirement when the player chooses.    

Living Magic

  I am fan of what's known in RPG circles as RAW or Rules As Written. In that I try to play as close to the written rules as possible. My interest in the OSR was partially fueled by a realization that the fewer rules there are the easier it is to play RAW.  However most likely D&D page counts increased over later editions to try and iron out problems with the rules text. Often a strict interpretation of the rules doesn't fit with the expectations of the players. My solution is to change the players minds with a little creative background to the world in which the play. One such aspect for example is magic. Its not a secret that I prefer Vancian  magic to anything else. Vancian is the fire and forget style for the earliest days of D&D. But reading the text of magic use I never liked the following description. "Reading from this book, the Magic-user presses a select spell formula into her mind, effectively preparing it to be cast.Once a prepared spell is cast, the spell formulae disappears from the Magic-user's mind, and must be prepared again before another attempt can be made to cast it. However, it is possible to prepare a spell multiple times using the available slots in the Magic-user's memory." What troubles me is if the caster forgets the spell formulae then how come the other spells in the memory slots are not affected? Are they different formulae? I never liked what's known as double dipping or multi-use magic. It just seems so mundane. It turns the Magic-user into a gun and the spells are the ammunition. But with one small change to the text without changing the rules you can alter players expectations. What if the formulae for a spell was a summoning for some living magic entity that is the spell itself. The "slots" in memory are holding cells for them. When cast they are released producing the magical effect. Being a Magic-user requires the discipline to build and maintain the cells to contain spells. Multiple copies of spells are each held separately. Casting one does not effect the others. A spell caster can skip the prep time and summon a spell directly from its source (book or scroll), but such haste burns (destroys) the source as a backlash.    

 

 

Reason for adventuring

 Why adventure? Even in a world where adventuring is normal why do they do it? Characters should have some reason beyond fame and riches. Another blog I read years ago suggested that in their world Dwarf society was comprised of only males, and reproduction involved carving a magical statue of your offspring. The more money spent on construction the greater the quality of the result. All dwarves quested to acquire loot for this purpose.

 I am fortunate that one of my offspring likes RPGs and I was having a conversation about this idea. In my proposed Swords and Wizardry game the non-human races don't normally leave their enclaves. She also plays D&D and had an idea for Elves. Elven society doesn't care material wealth. They are chroniclers and storytellers and information is the motivator for them. Each elf must undergo a quest for some piece of information that the Elves do not have. The quality and importance of it is judged at their return and determines their place in Elven society.

I can picture a scene of some lost treasure room;

   an Elf tossing coins and jewels aside to uncover an ancient scroll.

 

The Gateway

Here is an idea for introducing new players to a game world.

 A bright flash and your eyes slowly adjust to the light. You are standing in between the pillars of a ancient stone gate way. You have no idea how you got here, and you realize you don't remeber anything about yourself. A wild bearded man in tattered robes approaches loudly exclaiming. "Ah the gods have sent more to us, Welcome, Welcome strangers to our lands". "You will have many questions , yes but first you should eat and drink to regain some of your vigor". He and several others all similarly dressed drag you down the hill top to a small town and into a tavern. As you eat a hearty meal and drink some good wine or ale some small bit of memory returns.  
At this point the characters can remember their names and classes/levels (if applicable) but that's it. No other details, as they are just created characters their aren't any of course.
As you eat the bearded man explains; you have been sent to us from other places and we can help you start your new life here with us. " You are welcome to settle here if you wish, some newcomers have of course, but you may wish to continue your chosen professions as well". 

The next few days are spent teaching you of the lands and customs that they know of. This is of course the sketch notes of the world they will be adventuring in. Any gaps in knowledge can be attributed to lack of recall or something that was not known to the villagers of the gateway. I thought of this with D&D in mind but will work for any RPG. This was designed after seeing a number of adventuring groups fail to understand the world they were in. This offers an easy explanation for this lack of knowledge.

-Happy Gaming  

D&D 5th goes OGL? Meh, what ever.

 In case you haven't heard the news, D&D fifth edition has just been released for the OGL. My reaction is less than enthusiastic. Why? Because official D&D hasn't been my game of choice for some time now (since the switch form 3 to 3.5). The sucker punch of the official switch from one edition to another after so short of a time scale (only two years between my purchase of the 3rd Ed books and the 3.5 roll out) turned me off trying to stay current. I liked 3 rd edition just fine, but 4th just left me cold. Way too over complicated, tactically focused and just plain weird. I don't know what to think about 5th yet as I haven't absorbed it yet. But one thing I can say is that it's not my D&D. Some time ago I discovered the OSR community and found many of whom shared the desire to retain a simpler form of the rules.

 What did the OGL do for 3rd ed? Did it improve the game? Did it make it more accessible? These questions will most likely be asked of 5th ed and time will tell. But for me I see nothing but a glut of 5th ed material choking off some other possibly more creative stuff. I don't think its really good for the hobby. I see many game producers ditching their independent projects to crank out more OGL stuff. Soon the 5th ed like the Borg of Star Trek will assimilate all. Crazy talk? Maybe but one thing  is for sure, the new OGL doesn't matter much to me. You can always check out the SRD and judge for yourself. But as for me, Meh.

P.S. hopefully this post marks a return to me posting regularly 

Of Heroism and Hit Points part1

Land Of Nod has a good article on Hit Points. He describes hit points in his game Blood and Treasure ;

"Hit points don’t represent anything solid or real or concrete in and of themselves. Rather, they are part of a complex calculation that boils down to this: “What are the chances that the next moment of mortal peril you experience will be your last.” That mortal peril might be a sword fight, a poison needle, a trap door … anything that might kill you. Most often, hit points relate to combat.

This hits closest to how I imagine hit points work. To him they are an abstract measure of how likely you are to die in a dangerous situation. I think they are an abstract measure of how likely you think you are going to die. Think of it as morale. The player with their knowledge of the remaining hit point total acts like a countdown timer until they cut and run. That's how it could work. There is one problem though. Most players feel they have no other choice but to die when the ticker goes to 0. So many turn into suicide machines fighting on to the better end.

To counter this I use what I like to call my AWO option. Another Way Out. Let them escape or surrender and be taken prisoner. What ever the situation calls for.

P.S This is the first part of a two part post.
In the second part I will go into more detail about HPs work as morale.

Not Falling for Falling Damage

Over at Grognardia there is an article about the falling damage articles from Dragon magazine. Falling damage was one of a few things that never made sense. It just didn't mesh with our expectations. Back then we were trying to make everything "realistic". But the relationship between hit points, weapons damage, healing and falling damage was always difficult to understand. Much effort was put towards this end with (IMHO) little results. Usually adding more rules to a growing list.
But I am not falling for it anymore. I my future games (as I'm not currently running any now) hit points are considered a measure of fighting capacity and are only used in stand up fights where you can defend yourself. Falling down isn't a fight so it doesn't do hit point damage. I might use a saving throw to escape unharmed or assign arbitrary damage like half your hit point total. That might seem harsh to some. However I did create the world and populate it. So why can't I decide how much damage someone takes from falling down?

P.S. In my world if its not a monster or NPC attacking you, then its not hit point damage. This includes traps.

IF They Ask Me....

So WOTC is looking for players to tell them what they want in the new edition of Dungeons and Dragons. If they asked me I would gladly tell them what I want. I want D&D to be wild , mysterious and even a little bit creepy. I want the artwork to reflect that style. I would like the books to be like ancient tomes, not how to guides. I want them not care about upsetting people and not shy away from some material. I want the game to feel like an experience not an activity. I do not want some over hyped , one in every store, mass marketed, spoon fed, bubble wrapped, safe version of the game.

I WANT IT TO BE LIKE A HAUNTED HOUSE , NOT A FUN HOUSE.

That's what I would say if they asked me.

Rain on the Parade

5th edition scmith edition. I don't want to rain on the parade but the new edition of D&D will suck. By suck I mean fail to achieve its promise of having something for everyone. It just can't happen. I hope I am wrong but lets look at the facts. 3rd edition was supposed to be the massive revamp of the system designed to clear up and unify the rules and make the game accessible to a mass market. Yet it was replaced only 3 years later by the 3.5 "revision". 3.5 itself was replaced only 5 years after that by 4th. That edition was decried by many of the old guard as a tabletop copy online RPGs. 3.5 had a lifespan of 5 years. 4th ed is currently four years old. Time for a new edition! The designers might want a good game but the company wants a popular one. Popular means it will appeal to the most players. Does anyone wonder why 3 rd ed was so similar to computer games? I think the designers tried to tap into that popularity thinking popular=better. They could have turned away from that path with 4th ed. But they didn't so why would you think they would now. Sure they will listen to the players. But who is going to be talking. The squeakiest wheel will get the grease. I think the grognards voices will be lost to the noise of the munchkins.

P.S. This post didn't turn out as I originally planned. I had to compose it over the noise of children in the background.

I Got it , I Got it

Number two on the list of inspirational authors from the AD&D 1st ed DMG. I have been looking for years. Apparently John Bellairs is mainly a children's novel writer with only one adult book to his name. That might explain why its been difficult for me to find a copy. But after a recent trip to the local used book store to just browse the shelves it practically jumped out at me. I wasn't even looking for it at the time. Although coming in at less than 200 pages (my copy has 174) I look forward to it with great anticipation. Each book that I have read from that list has given me great insight into the complex realm that is Dungeons & Dragons.

Shield Math

Some recent posts about the great shield debates have me thinking again. Historically shields became less useful as plate armour began to be worn. So I thought, "Is this replicated in the D&D rules?" Lets look at the math. If we compare the rating of different armours to the the fixed bonus for the shield. We get a ratio or percentage of protection of the armours'.

If you have leather gives a bonus of 2 points and a shield which gives 1 point
the ratio of bonuses is 1 to 2 or 50% so the shield is 50% as good as the armour


Now for Chain mail , bonus 4 points and 1 for the shield is a ratio of 1/4
or 25% as good as the armour


And finally Plate , bonus of 6 and the shield's 1 point for ratio of only 1/6

or about 17% as good as the armour.

So you can see that shields account for a smaller and smaller percentage of the total protection as you wear better armour classes.

Yeah, the system's fine. Nothing to worry about here, move along citizen.

This Might Sting a Bit

There has been some noise on the blogs lately about how much magic sucks in D&D. And by proxy how magic-users suck as well. Forgetting a spell after its cast makes no sense. The spell levels don't match character levels. You can't scale the magical effect up or down. Why do I have to waste a spell slot on Read Magic? Well, (pardon my bluntness) Waa, Waa,Waa. I say deal with it babies. Everyone who has played or will play D&D should do one thing first. Read Jack Vance's The Dying Earth. The way magic is presented in the book is what the D&D system is trying to replicate. Magic is not science, it is not technology and its not even an art. To summarize here is a few brief points on Vancian magic for those of you who haven't read the book (no story spoilers).

• Magic is a dying practise, there were once 1000's of spells now only about 100 are known
• Each magician jealously guards their spells and writes them down in a unique code
  
• Memorising a spell is like putting a ethereal creature in your head and casting releases it
• Even the most powerful mages can store only a handful of spells in their head
• The greater the experience of the magician the greater power of and number of spells
  
• Casting a spell requires only a few words and simple gestures ( ie no time at all)

I would say to try incorporating some of those ideas into the background of your game before deciding that the magic system sucks. Never mind balance. Just make it interesting.

the Sucker Punch, abandoning realism

I liked Sucker Punch. It was a rock and roll, gonzo kick ass movie. While watching a combat sequence in which the heroine faces down a giant demon samurai , I had a thought. How very D&D this fight was. During the fight she gets hit and flies through the air and crashes against a wall. The impact leaves a crater. She shrugs it off and gets back into the battle. A perfect visual example of how hit points work. Its not realistic, it doesn't even try to be. But it works because the world is fantastic, larger than life, magical and wondrous. Even a little bit anime. Definitely a make believe world. If the players can get behind the idea of that, than the other iconic features of D&D can work as well. Levels, experience points and even armour class can make sense. So inspired by how cool it looked on the movie screen. And what a cool world it was. Sucker Punch has motivated me to abandon realism in gaming. In truth I have been moving away from it for some time.

Sub-Optimal To Optimal

Gradnardia was musing on optional character creation methods (or the cheating methods) in AD&D. And their use in avoiding sub-optimal characters. Use of such characters is discouraged because of their low survivability. Without the maximum hit points and full bonuses for combat its felt that they would fair poorly. This probably stems from the fact that combat is almost always lethal. Lose all your HP and you're dead. But it doesn't have to be. The losing side can flee, surrender or negotiate. This can occur before all hit points are lost or the point when they run out (zero or below). Sub-optimal characters might have this happen more often but it is survivable. But in world where combat isn't always the end in death it does make them more optimal.
And something about a flawed character just appeals to me.

As Seen On TV

I finally saw the episode of Community where they play AD&D. Its not really the best portrayal of it on TV. They skip over most of the identifiable mechanics of the game. But they do so to push the plot along. I don't blame them for doing so. The game itself is boring as a spectator sport. I don't think we will ever see TSN broadcast the World Series of Dungeons and Dragons. And the game is being played largely by those whom have never played before. I thought it was particularly funny when Abed the DM starts to describe the different characters and how they might choose one only to have the players scramble and randomly grab sheets. That would not happen in any groups I have played with. The focus of how the game is shown is through the players choices. Die rolls serve only to provide drama or comedy, like the die roll for Pierce to successfully rub his balls on the sword. Its not the best version, that award goes to the Freaks and Geeks episode featuring Carlos the dwarf. In the Community episode it doesn't really matter that the game is D&D. That is secondary, any game could be substituted. Many have wondered about why that version of D&D was used. Maybe the writers picked AD&D for the widest possible recognition. Or it might have been a subtle homage to the afor mentioned Freaks and Geeks episode. Or possibly to avoid copyright infringement. Whatever the reason it was good to see D&D being shown without it being analyzed.

Only Rewarding Random Success

I am a avid reader of Schlock Mercenary webcomic by Howard Tayler. Today there is a short video loop on his site of him doing a happy dance (because he got his comics done early). There is also a link to the full video on Youtube. After checking out the link I decided to watch one of his other videos "Talent? Who needs Talent?". Now I consider myself a creative person and (slightly) smarter than your average bear. So his lecture was most illuminating. In it he explores that relationship between talent and practice and success at any endevor. For those of you who haven't watched it yet here is what it boils down to. Talent is not responsible in any measurable way for success. Instead he reaffirms the old adage "practice makes perfect".People get to the top by practice. By working at it for a long time. Despite that, it occured to me that we tend to only look at talent as nessesary for success. And our society is obsesed with success. We love "winners". We pour accolades on and practally worship those who eccel at something. And only talented people will succed. That somehow the top of the heap are better than us lesser people. That they are destined for better things. We love the idea of the overnight success story. And as a society we only reward people for their success.The effort is ignored and only the result matters. This view even is present in RPGs. Why do we only get experience points for winning? In D&D you don't get XP for fighting the monster you get it killing it (or otherwise overcoming it). Only success matters. The players can have a good plan for dealing with the monster but ultimately it comes down to random die rolls. And the game rewards talent by having those rolls modified by bonuses for high stats. For example the level 1 fighting man with 18 strength vs a level 3 fighting man with 12 strength. Assume the same hit points for both. The odds favor the higher strength over the greater level. You can argue that the level 3 fighter should have more hit points and therefore last longer in the fight thus winning. But what if that player rolled poorly for hit points. And hit point rolls are modified by high constitution, once again rewarding a "talent".
I have decided that in my game there will not be any personal stat bonuses. They were optional anyway and were added in later supplements to the orginal rules. I feel that they alter the results of a random die roll by something that was itself gained by a random die roll. Thats too much randomness for me. The critics will decry that then stats don't matter. I will still allow the XP bonuses as per the rules as they don't seem too unreasonable. And stats will matter in a different way see my post Using The Numbers . And the other change is that players will get XP for fighting monsters not killing them. As long as you survive the encounter you get the points. The reward will be geared to the effort not the result. And the result will be judged more from good play and less from die rolls.

Narrative , Pacing and Leveling Up

There are things about D&D that bug me. Certain artificialities that break the spell of fantasy and remind me that I'm playing a game. One of those is leveling up. I'm sure that it was the first thing to be copyed in the online versions of roleplaying. It always seemed so odd that as soon as you hit a magic number of experience points then "bing" you are instantly better at everything and can sustain more damage in combat. There have been a few Dragon magazine articles and such about how to make leveling up more realistic but that's not really what I'm looking for. Not realism, but a sense of fitting in to the story of the characters. I like to look at the adventures the party has as a story. And the instant nature of leveling up doesn't match with that ideal. Most of the options for leveling up call for some type of training to be paid for and undertaken. Usually in a town where the party finds itself. That gave me an idea. What if it wasn't training per se but a side quest or ordeal instead. And it takes time, and at a place far away from the party. The party splits up for a time and goes their separate ways. Later, (weeks or months or perhaps even years) have gone by and the party gets back together. They have spent all the loot , (maybe on a drunken orgy or two) and are now broke and need to go adventuring again. They meet up and swap stories about their time away. Players should feel free to create whatever backstory they like to fill in this gap. By creating a time gap in the narrative it creats a more epic story. Instead of going on one adventure after another like an assembly line they have periodic adventures. It always bothered me how PC seem to reach high levels in only a few months whereas NPC take years to build up that kind of experience.
Maybe something like this has been suggested before. But for me the crucial elements are time away from the party, a measure of time passing and the backstory the player creates. A crafty DM can even award extra magic items and spells or other things based on the PC's tale. Maybe there can be more to a charcter's life than bashing monsters and taking their stuff.

Different Roles Different Goals part two

Anonymous has posted a commnet on my last post. You can it read below. He does make a valid argument for the gold for xp scheme. But gold for xp just feels to gamey for me. To much like online computer games with their kill-the-monster-and-take-its-stuff style of play. I'm actually trying to reduce the emphasis of leveling up as a major factor in playing the game. It is perhaps a bold step and might not be popular with some players. I want to treat the party as a group of individuals not some fantasy based commando strike force engineered for success. I have seen too many partys who strip mine dungeons of every last copper coin. They then hunch over calculators like some dimented accountants, to divide every last coin to perfectly balance the party's levels. A sense of adventure should be the prime requisite for characters not greed.

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

One of the unavoidable facts of role playing games is that the players know they are playing a game. Many players look for fairness and balance or try to win and beat the game. To some their charcters are just playing pieces to be moved across the board. I have played with players like that. 4th editon D&D is geared toward that style. I don't think its wrong but its not how I like to play. I said unavoidable because I would prefer it if the players didn't know if they were playing a game. Impossible yes but at least to minimize the intrusion of game mechnics into the fantasy would be best. Thats one reason why I prefer rules-light systems (its also less rules to remember). Players know too much I think. They know how many hit points their characters have left. Or what chance they have of picking a pocket. There is no such knowledge in the real world. Player knowledge of the rules I think can limit my choices as a DM. If players pay less attention to the rules and more to the game that would be ideal to me.